Transitioning from least developed country status: Are countries better off?

The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are an internationally defined group of highly vulnerable and structurally constrained economies with extreme levels of poverty. Since the category was created in 1971, on the basis of selected vulnerability indicators, only five countries have graduated and the number of LDCs has doubled. One would intuitively have thought that graduation from LDC status would be something that all LDCs would want to achieve since it seems to suggest that transitioning countries are likely to benefit from increased economic growth, improved human development and reduced susceptibility to natural disasters and trade shocks.

However, when countries graduate they lose international support measures (ISMs) provided by the international community. There is no established institutional mechanism for the phasing out of LDC country-specific benefits. As a result, entities such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund may not always be able to support a country’s smooth transition process.

Currently, 14 out of 53 members of the Commonwealth are classified as LDCs and the number is likely to reduce as Bangladesh, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu transition from LDC status by 2021. The three criteria used to assess LDC transition are: Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI), Human Assets Index (HAI) and Gross National Income per capita (GNI). Many of the forthcoming LDC graduates will transition based only on their GNI. This GNI level is normally set at US $ 1,230 but if the GNI reaches twice this level at US $ 2,460 a country can graduate.

So what’s the issue? A recent Commonwealth – Trade Hot Topicpublication confirms that most countries graduate only on the basis of their GNI, some of which have not attained significant improvements in human development (HAI) and even more of which fall below the graduation threshold for economic development due to persistent vulnerabilities (EVI). This latter aspect raises the question as to whether transitioning countries will, actually, be better off after they graduate.

Given the loss of ISMs and the persistent economic vulnerabilities of many LDCs, it is no surprise that some countries are actually seeking to delay graduation, Kiribati and Tuvalu being two such Commonwealth countries despite easily surpassing twice the GNI threshold for graduation.

How is it possible that a country can achieve economic growth but not have appreciable improvements in resilience to economic vulnerability? Based on a statistical analysis discussed in the Trade Hot Topic paper, a regression model, based on all forty-seven LDCs, was produced. The model revealed that there was no statistically significant relationship between economic vulnerability and gross national income per capita. The analysis was repeated just for Commonwealth countries and similar results were obtained.

Most importantly, analysis revealed that there was a positive relationship between GNI and EVI. In other words, increases in wealth (using GNI as a proxy) is likely to result in an increase in economic vulnerability. This latter result is counterintuitive since one would expect more wealth to result in less economic vulnerability.

So what’s the take away?

The statistical results do not necessarily imply that improving the factors affecting economic vulnerability cannot result in improvements to economic prosperity. It does suggest, however, that either insufficient efforts have gone into effecting such improvements or that there are natural limits to the extent to which such improvements can be effected.

One thing is clear, the multilateral lending agencies should revisit the removal of measures supporting climate change or other vulnerabilities for LDCs on graduation, since the empirical evidence suggests that countries could fall back into LDC status or stagnate and be unable to achieve sustainable development. Whilst transitioning from LDC status should be desirable, it should not be an end in itself. Rather than to transition and remain extremely vulnerable, countries should be resistant to such change or continue to receive more targeted support until vulnerabilities are reduced to more acceptable levels.

Uber & the Neoliberal State

Everyday in my local papers, I read stories
with headlines like “Subway
Ridership Dropped Again in New York as Passengers Flee to Uber.” AMNY, in its daily Tweet compilation section,
generally devotes at least half of its selections to posts bashing the subway
and bus system. In the midst of the
hangover that was last week’s Uber IPO (in which it immediately lost 8% of its
value), it would be appropriate to contemplate the intersection of Uber (and
its ugly stepsister Lyft) and the government.

In the shadow of the Great Depression and
WWII, under the Administrations of the multimillionaire Franklin Roosevelt and
the no-nonsense Republican Dwight Eisenhower, the federal government invested
the equivalent of football fields full of cash on infrastructure projects like
the Interstate Highway System (which
cost half a trillion in today’s dollars).
States and cities likewise undertook great transportation schemes. Between the 1920s and 1960s, Robert Moses
funded 413
mi. of parkways and 13 bridges for NYC through, among other things, local
tolls.

Governmental abdication in regards to
public transportation has created a vacuum that the private sector is now
trying to fill. This is problematic for many reasons. Bereft of the full-time
employee status and union membership of public transit employees, Uber and Lyft
drivers, as “independent contractors”, are treated like sharecroppers, with no minimum
wage or pension/healthcare
plans. Infrastructure underfunding
leads to lost opportunities for construction companies and their suppliers,
which costs the economy money and jobs.
Uber and Lyft, by contrast, contribute nothing to the roads, tunnels and
bridges that they use, other than tolls and the income that they don’t shield
via elaborate
tax evasion schemes… That and a
nearly threefold increase in congestion, which hurts shipping and personal
drivers’ commutes. Safety laws are frequently broken by Uber
and its
drivers, who undergo nothing more than a basic background screening, and
receive no substantive training, prior to being hired. The secluded, close-quarters nature of the
rideshare template has led to many incidences of sexual
assault and harassment for drivers and riders alike (by contrast, bus and
yellow-cab drivers are generally shielded from their clients by bulletproof
glass).

The privatization of transit also creates a
commuter caste system, in which affluent citizens can spend $20 on a quick Uber
ride to work, while poorer people must rely on perpetually-delayed
trains, anxiously waiting on train platforms that are often literally
falling apart due to neglect. This
problem extends far beyond rideshare apps.
For years, Elon Musk has been unsuccessfully trying to sell various
municipalities on the concept of the experimental hyperloop, a pricier, less
efficient version of a subway. Hyperloop
trains of the future will supposedly be able to travel at 700 mph… but
they can only carry 28 people at a time!
So Musk wants cities to potentially invest billions to construct
underground tunnel networks that only a couple hundred people a day max would
be able to use, let alone afford, considering the pricy ticket fees that would
probably be necessary in order to generate electricity for the hyperloop’s
futuristic maglev-vacuum operating system.
Bullet trains also operate on a maglev system, but the cost gets spread
out to over
a thousand customers per trip, instead of just 28. Emulating Musk, fellow billionaire Jeff Bezos
just unveiled his space exploration company Blue Origin’s lunar
lander prototype. The fact that NASA
is, due to chronic underfunding, being outpaced by Blue Origin and Elon Musk’s
SpaceX, is not only a national disgrace, but a matter of concern for the
welfare of humanity as a whole. If space
travel becomes monopolized by a handful of billionaires, it could eventually
lead to the scenario envisioned by sci-fi dystopias like Elysium, wherein only the rich will be allowed to escape our dying
planet, while the poor masses are left behind.

In regards to public transportation (and
many other fields), the US is quickly falling behind China. The Middle Kingdom has over
19,000 mi. of high-speed rail (much of it built just this past decade); the
US has just 2% of that total and much of it is contained to an old NYC-DC Acela
line that is woefully obsolete. Eight
new airports get built in China every year, meaning that China’s total
stockpile of airports will
double by 2035. The last American
international airport was
built last century and many existing airports, like the infamous LaGuardia,
are falling apart due to underfunding.
The nation famous for its cyclists also boasts the
world’s largest elevated bike lane; by contrast, bike lanes are a very
controversial issue in American cities, where its staunch-individualist
detractors decry them as
Communist plots.

This growing disparity is being fuelled by
the two nation’s different appropriations models. China realizes the importance of central
planning in regards to major infrastructure projects. Investing in high-speed rail might not be
“profitable” if measured solely by ticket revenue, but it pays for itself in
the long-term by spurring urban development, construction contracts and
employment, and increased tax revenues from workers now able to access better
jobs and commerce. Not to mention that
traffic accidents, often the result of crumbling and
obsolete road infrastructure, is the
#8 cause of fatalities worldwide, including 32,000
a year in the US. The American
mindset is more myopic, focused only on short-term viability for
investors. This was encapsulated by Trump’s
infrastructure plan, which focused on subsidies for corporations and
localities… the same model that has been failing America’s infrastructure for
decades.

It’s clear that the Uber-ization of public
transportation is an inadequate and unsustainable solution. The corporate model is solely predicated on
short-term growth and the exploitation of its workforce. In order to keep up with fellow superpower
China, the US must take a centralized approach to maintaining and upgrading its
faltering subways, trains, airports, bridges, roads and waterways. Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration employed
about 9M Americans in the construction of some of the world’s most
successful infrastructure projects, such as 29,000 new bridges, at the height
of the US’ greatest financial crisis. People like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez are looking to emulate this past success by enacting a Green New Deal, which
would employ millions of Americans in constructing sustainable
infrastructure. Likewise, it would be a
boon for construction firms, industrial goods suppliers like Caterpillar,
shipping-oriented companies like Amazon and urban-based businesses as a
whole. America must invest itself, in
its people, in its future.

Related

Convergence Of Competitive Markets And Indian Elections

If competition is a key component of a flourishing economy, it is
equally true that competition in electoral politics and elections is a powerful
force for the healthy growth of a vibrant democracy enhancing legitimacy of
political parties and their responsiveness to the aspirations of the electorate.

Viewed from the Indian perspective, there is a striking identity
between the rights of consumers in the free market economy and the rights of
voters in our political democracy. Equally noteworthy is the identity of the fundamental
principles governing the rule of law in the free market system, the
institutional arrangements for safeguarding consumer rights and the rule of law
of elections and the regulatory environment for monitoring the functioning of a
free and fair electoral democracy. The free market system ensures the best
available goods and services are offered to the consumer at the optimal price
following the principles of free market competition without restrictive and
unfair trade practices enforced through the Consumer Protection Act1986 and the
Competition Act 2002.

In the democratic system,
the voters are given the right to elect the best available persons as people’s
representatives through conducting elections in a free and fair manner which
forms the bedrock of democracy. This is ensured by the Election Commission
through the enforcement of the Guidelines of Model Code of Conduct for political
parties and candidates during elections mainly with respect to speeches,
polling day, polling booths, portfolios, election manifestos, processions and
general conduct. Thus, while the role of a Referee in the free market system in
India is played by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Competition
Commission of India, the rules of free
and fair elections in political
democracy are enforced by the Election Commission of India.

In a market economy, competition facilitates a host of benefits:
awareness and market penetration, higher quality at same prices, increase in
demand and consumption through competitive pricing, product differentiation,
upgradation and innovation, improvements in efficiency of production at optimal
levels by minimising cost and losses and increasing customer service and
satisfaction. Competition in politics and elections elevates the voter to a
pivotal role in democracy as that given to the consumer in a market driven
economy. Electoral candidates vie for votes by promising reforms such as better
governance, greater socio-economic equity and positive measures for poverty
alleviation.

Each political party through its campaigns, manifesto and other
propaganda machinery strives hard to win the maximum number of voters in electoral
democracy transforming it as a political free market system with fierce
competition between the players similar
to the efforts of sellers in the free
market economy to attract the maximum number of customers.

A free market system
across the globe, is characterised by
the existence of not only the most
efficient firms but also several inefficient ones who are unable to produce the
best quality goods and services at
lowest prices and even those resorting
to fraudulent , restrictive and unfair
trade practices. Similarly, in political democracy and elections around the
world, besides politicians and parties
with high degree of integrity and democratic values, there are those with criminal
records, adopting ideologies prejudiced by notions of race,
caste, colour, gender and religion based politics, and those charged
with allegations of vote buying etc. which continues to undermine the
democratic process.

Consumer Rights
in a Free Market Economy

In India, the interests of
the consumer in the market economy from
restrictive, unfair and anti-competitive trade practices by firms is safeguarded through several strong legal
provisions which inter alia includes the
enactment of the Consumer Protection Act
1986 and the Competition Act 2002. In
addition, consumers rights in the economy are further protected through The
Indian Contract Act, 1872, The Sale of Goods Act, of 1930 and The Agriculture produce Act of 1937. This
is further strengthened by the establishment of supportive quasi-judicial
institutional arrangements i.e the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at
the National, State and District level as well as the Competition Commission of
India.

The main objective of the competition law of India is to promote
economic efficiency using competition as one of the means of assisting the
creation of market responsive to consumer preferences. The advantages of
perfect competition are three-fold: allocative efficiency which ensures that
costs of production are kept at a minimum and dynamic efficiency which promotes
innovative practices.

To achieve its objectives, the Competition Commission of India endeavours
to do the following:

Make the markets work for the benefit and
welfare of consumers

Ensure fair and healthy competition in
economic activities in the country for faster and inclusive growth and
development of the economy.

Implement competition policies with an aim to
effectuate the most efficient utilization of economic resources.

Develop and nurture effective relations and
interactions with sectoral regulators to ensure smooth alignment of sectoral
regulatory laws in tandem with the competition law.

Effectively carry out competition advocacy
and spread the information on benefits of competition among all stakeholders to
establish and nurture completion culture in Indian economy.

Voters Rights in
a Political Democracy

As a free market economy cannot sustain consumer rights without
supportive legal and institutional framework, there is little doubt that for the
survival of a free and fair democracy, the rule of law should prevail and it is
necessary that the best available persons should be chosen as people’s
representatives for proper governance of the country (Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankararao v Balasaheb Vikhepati lAIR 1994 SC
678). India isa sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic. Democracy is
one of the inalienable basic features of the Constitution of India and forms
parts of its basic structure (Kesavanand Bharati
v State of Kerala and Others AIR 1973 SC 1461). The concept of democracy,
as visualised by the Constitution, pre-supposes the representation of the
people in Parliament and State Legislatures by the method of election (N.P.Punnuswami v Returning Officer Namakka lAIR
1952 SC 64).

Accordingly, in India, in the
realm of political democracy and elections, the interests of the voters
and electorate is safeguarded through
the Constitution of India,
Representation of the People’s
Act 1950 and 1951,Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Rules 1974,
Registration of Electors Rules 1960 and Conduct of Elections Rules 1961.

In India, the above legal provisions of elections and voting under
political democracy are administered and further supplemented by
the Election Commission’s directions and instructions on all aspects. The
underlying principle of parliamentary
democracy enforced by the Election Commission of India is to ensure free and fair elections for
which there are three pre-requisites: (1) an authority to conduct these
elections, which should be insulated from political and executive interference,
(2) set of laws which should govern the conduct of elections and in accordance
whereof the authority charged with the responsibility of conducting these elections
should hold them, and (3) a mechanism whereby all doubts and disputes arising
in connection with these elections should be resolved. The Constitution of Indi
has paid due attention to all these imperatives and duly provided for all the
three matters.

The Constitution has created an independent Election Commission of
India in which vest the superintendence, direction and control of preparation
of electoral rolls for, and conduct of elections to, the officers of president and
Vice President of India and Parliament and State Legislatures (Article 324). A
similar independent constitutional authority has been created for conduct of
elections to municipalities, panchayats and other local bodies (Articles 243 K
and 243 ZA) along with legal and institutional provisions for settlement of disputes relating to elections.

Model Code of
Conduct in India

Election Commission of India has laid down a set of guidelines for conduct
of political parties and candidate during elections. The main points of code of
conduct are:

The government
may not lay any new ground for projects or public initiatives once the Model
Code of Conduct comes into force.

Government
bodies are not to participate in any recruitment process during the electoral
process.

The contesting
candidates and their campaigners must respect the home life of their rivals and
should not disturb them by holding road shows or demonstrations in front of
their houses.

The election
campaign rallies and road shows must not hinder the road traffic.

Candidates are
asked to refrain from distributing liquor to voters.

The Code
hinders the government or ruling party leaders from launching new welfare
programmes like construction of roads, provision of drinking water facilities
etc or any ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

The code
instructs that public spaces like meeting grounds, helipads, government guest
houses and bungalows should be equally shared among the contesting candidates.
These public spaces should not be monopolized by a few candidates.

On polling day,
all political party candidates should cooperate with the poll-duty officials at the voting booths for
an orderly voting process. Candidates should not display their election symbols
near and around the poll booths on the polling day. No one should enter the
booths without a valid pass from the Election Commission.

There will be
poll observers to who any complaints can be reported or submitted.

The ruling
party should not use its seat of power for the campaign purposes.

The ruling
party ministers should not make any ad-hoc appointment of officials, which may
influence the voters in favour of the party in power.

Before using
loud speakers during their poll campaigning, candidates and political parties
must obtain permission or license from the local authorities. The candidates
should inform the local police for conducting election rallies to enable the
police authorities to make required security arrangements.

Conclusion

In a wider sense, both free markets and democratic elections are
run on the basis of a set of rules with respective regulatory bodies enforcing
the rules of the game. While there is a strong element of political
centralization in the decision making process of elections, free market system
is tilted more towards the principle of economic decentralisation. However, the
consumer and the voter whose rights are legally and institutionally safeguarded
remain as the principal beneficiaries of both systems- the economic and
political. Thus free markets and democracy have identical underlying objectives
of maximising welfare of the people. The convergence of the political economy
of free markets and elections therefore highlights the democratic principles
governing the welfare of citizens.

Related

Euro – 20 years on: Who won and who lost?

The
common European currency – the euro – came into being 20 years ago. Since January 1, 1999, the euro has been
widely used in cashless money transfers. On January 1, 2002, banknotes and
coins were introduced into circulation. How did the European countries benefit
from the single currency? How many profited from its introduction?

In the early 1990s, the
European Community entered a new stage of development which was characterized
by a transition to a higher level of integration within it and expansion to
include more members. This was provided by the Treaty on European Union, which
was signed on February 7, 1992 in the Dutch city of Maastricht and entered into
force on November 1, 1993. The Maastricht agreements and the subsequent
decisions of the EU’s governing bodies – the European Council and the Council
of the EU –formed a groundwork for a gradual, stage-by-stage creation of a
monetary union and the introduction of a single currency, the euro.

At the time the decision on
the introduction of the euro came into effect it was believed that the main
objectives of the transition to a single monetary policy and the replacement of
national banknotes with a single European one were the following. First of all,
a monetary union was supposed to put the finishing touches to the formation of
a common market and was to transform the EU territory into an economic space
with equal opportunities for all players. A single currency was expected to
facilitate the transition of the EU to a common economic policy, which, in
turn, was seen as indispensable for moving to a new level of political
integration. Many also viewed a single currency as vital for cementing European
integration and a symbol of the economic and political integrity of the region.
It was assumed that the euro would keep European countries “in the same
harness” even in times of crisis and would help them to overcome
differences and even resist outbursts of nationalism.

The second goal was to prevent
losses caused by continuous fluctuations in the rates of Western European
currencies. Once the euro was established, risk payments for possible losses in
different-currency transactions became a thing of the past. It was assumed that
stable and low interest rates would bring down inflation and stimulate economic
growth. Thirdly, it was thought that fixed exchange rates within the euro zone
with no more fluctuations would boost investment activity and, as a result,
would improve the situation on the labor market. In addition, a better economic
performance was to make it easier for countries to enter the EU and adapt to
the new reality. A better economic performance was supposed to make European
products more competitive in world markets.

Fourth, a single currency was
supposed to significantly cut circulation costs. At the end of the 1990s, the
existence of various national currencies cost the EU countries 20-25 billion
ECU (26-33 billion dollars) annually, including the cost of keeping records of
currency transactions, insuring currency risks, conducting exchange operations,
drawing up the price lists in various currencies, etc. Finally, fifthly, the
initiators of the single currency hoped that the euro would become one of the
international reserve currencies. The introduction of the euro was supposed to
change the balance of strength between the United States and united Europe in
favor of the latter. In the long run, it boiled down to ensuring more
independence of the EU economic policy since interest rates on long-term loans
would be less dependent on American ones.

What is happening at present?
Not surprisingly, the greatest difficulties emerged while grappling with
the most pressing and large-scale agenda involving the ambitious plans of the
political and economic transformation of the EU and the strengthening of its
global geo-economic role. Indeed, since the late 1990s, the economic and
financial spheres of the EU have undergone dramatic changes. In 2004 and 2007,
the majority of Central and Eastern European countries joined the Union (an
increase in social dumping). The current EU “bears little
resemblance” to that of 20 years ago. “Not only the currency has
become different, but the entire European economy has changed.”

Nevertheless, as predicted by
those who criticized the approved version of transition to a single European
currency, chances for meeting the
criteria of eurozone membership in case the global economy followed an
unfavorable scenario are pretty slim for most countries of the eurozone.
As economic and financial crises sweep Europe one after another, the presence
of the euro and the unprecedentedly high level of the European Central Bank’s
autonomy and its extensive powers are restricted by the “possibility of
influencing the economy” of separate states. Since inflation rates vary from
country to country, the interest rate suggested by the ECB (about 2%) turns out
to be too low for countries with high inflation (which leads to financial
bubbles) and too high for countries with low inflation (which has a negative
impact on investments).

As a result, the economic
slowdown in European economies in the 2000s through 2010s led to increases in
budget deficits. According to the requirements of the eurozone, governments have to raise taxes or cut
spending, even if it damages national economy. Formally, there exists a
procedure to tackle economic upheavals in this or that country of the eurozone
to minimize their consequences for other members. From the point of view of
abstract macroeconomic indicators this procedure is functioning well. But,
judging by what happened in Spain, and then in Greece and Italy, its social, economic and subsequently, political
costs are too high. In the first place, we talk about social upheavals,
which became one the main reasons for the rise of “right-wing populists” across
Europe.

The
euro is running into problems mainly because it hinges on politics, rather than
economics. On the one hand, it is this
that largely keeps it from the collapse. The EU leadership is ready to sustain
any financial or economic losses to preserve the single currency.
However, from the economic viewpoint, the ECB’s readiness for currency
interventions has ruined market
discipline. In March this year the German Wirtschafts Woche stated that the euro had failed to become either an
effective currency or an EU stability enhancing tool. What proves it is
the fact that without “billions and billions in financial injections on the
part of the European Central Bank and European governments to save the euro the
single currency
would have long sunk dead”. The 2008 financial crunch quickly triggered the
crisis of the eurozone which culminated in the Greek debt crisis of 2010. As a
result, “the dispute over how to save the single currency laid bare purely
political differences across Europe”.

As skeptics forecast,
membership in the eurozone, sought by countries with different levels of
economic development regardless of the tough requirements and selection
criteria, resulted in a situation in which a setback in the global economic performance hit weaker members the hardest.
Citing the IMF, Le Figaro points out that “the euro exchange rate is too high
for France and Italy (which deals a blow on their competitiveness), and is too
low for Germany (by about 20%)”. This provided the German economy with a
clear edge over other EU members and secured a “huge foreign trade proficit”.
Moreover, in the course of the eurozone crisis in 2009 there emerged a vicious
circle: Germany’s domineering position in the EU enabled Berlin to dictate its
policy of austere budgetary measures to the greater part of the rest of Europe,
which, in turn, gave rise to an outburst of anti-German sentiment in a whole
range of countries, including Greece
and Italy.

Therefore, in 20 years of its
existence the euro has made Germany yet more powerful economically than it used
to be. Simultaneously, it has become a major factor that contributed to
Germany’s isolation in Europe. Critics say that while drafting the euro project
its authors meant to weaken Germany. Instead, the single currency “strengthened
it, providing it with competitive advantages through a “weak” euro”. Central Europe
has become a supplier of spare parts for German businesses thereby putting into
practice the Mitteleuropa Doctrine in the 21st century. The rest of
the EU countries have become a market for German goods. Meanwhile, Germany has
to pay for economic failures of an ever greater number of its EU partners. In
such a way, Germany’s economic
might has all but become a major
threat to European integration. Pessimists fear the current
economic and geopolitical trends will sooner or later push the Germans into
pursuing a more “egoistic” and “aggressive” policy, in every sense of the word.
Everyone remembers what this kind of policy ended with in a period from the
mid19th to the mid20th century.

As
for the second and third points of the objectives of a single currency, the
results are contradictory. Inflation in
the eurozone is indeed at an all-time low. There has occurred a unification of
the common market of goods, capitals and workforce. At the same time, measures
which are being taken by the European Central Bank to fight low inflation have
more than once driven a number of EU countries into recession and sovereign
debt crises. Living standards in EU countries have not been growing steadily
over the past few years. A rise in wages has turned out to be much smaller than
predicted in the late 1990s. Most European banks still prefer holding
debt obligations of their countries only, which, in case of financial crisis,
is fraught with banking problems and could ruin national economy. As for
competitiveness, the appearance of a single market “in the first place,
aggravated competition between EU countries”. Simultaneously, the
introduction of the same standards and requirements for all countries of the
eurozone “cemented their differences, rather than brought them together”.

The
fourth point can be considered fully implemented. Economic transactions have been simplified, cost less
and have got rid of exchange-related risks. According to the British The
Economist, three out of five residents of eurozone countries consider the euro
useful for their country. And 75% of Europeans are sure that the single
currency benefits the EU. Meanwhile, the
removal of barriers to capital movements has led to a significant imbalance in
investments, especially in the industrial sector. The main benefits went
to countries located in the center of the EU while the geographical
“periphery” of the eurozone has lost some of its former investment
attractiveness. But the presence of the euro makes it impossible for the less
fortunate countries to stimulate the economy by bringing down the currency
value.

As for the fifth point, some
of the ambitious plans have been implemented. The euro has already made a significant contribution to the weakening of
the position of the US dollar in the global economy. According to the
European Commission, one-fifth of the world’s currency reserves are denominated
in the single European currency. “340 million citizens use it daily, 60
countries and territories link their currency
to it”. On the other hand, 10 years of 20 years of its history the eurozone has
devoted to the struggle against an “unprecedented crisis”. By now, experts say
there has been a “fragile recovery.” Nevertheless, unlike its main competitors, the dollar and the yuan, the
euro has no solid foundation. The EU budget is used mainly for paying
subsidies to member countries, while the years-long disputes over prospects for
creating a common EU ministry of finance all but fuel differences between 19
eurozone governments.

Thus, according to optimists,
criticism of the euro is first of all the result of profound differences on the
fundamental issues of European economic policy. The single currency consolidated
the leaders of Europe, provided them with the common goal of creating a more
integrated, a more attractive for trade and business, and a globally
competitive, economy. However, a further stable existence of a single currency
mechanism in Europe calls for urgent reforms, which European politicians are
either not ready for or are not capable of. According to critics, the single
currency has driven the different economies of the EU countries into the
Procrustean bed of all-fitting standard format. The single currency mechanism
completely ignores, if not completely denies, the geographical, historical and
cultural specifics of the member states. Overall, the current model of economic
and monetary integration in the EU mindlessly forces countries whose national
economies do not match the general format “to carry out endless reforms,” which
all but aggravate their long-standing inherent problems.